I keep noticing how much of a chain's behavior is decided by transaction format alone. On Dusk, that's no footnote: Phoenix carries UTXO-style inputs and outputs; Moonlight carries a single account and signature instead.
What I like about that explicitness: the network gets one defined object to check before anything else runs. Dusk types transactions into four shapes — transfers, contract calls, contract deploys, and memo transfers carrying up to 512 bytes — so the protocol isn't guessing intent from a blob of bytes.
The cost, as I see it: every field becomes permanent state to validate and store. Dusk hit this directly — obfuscated zero-value notes were bloating the note tree, so the team made them transparent instead, purely to stop it growing.
My answer: explicit structure stays worth it only if you keep pruning what it costs to carry. Dusk clearly does that. Whether it holds as more transaction types get added is what I'm not sure about yet.
$DUSK @Dusk #dusk
What I like about that explicitness: the network gets one defined object to check before anything else runs. Dusk types transactions into four shapes — transfers, contract calls, contract deploys, and memo transfers carrying up to 512 bytes — so the protocol isn't guessing intent from a blob of bytes.
The cost, as I see it: every field becomes permanent state to validate and store. Dusk hit this directly — obfuscated zero-value notes were bloating the note tree, so the team made them transparent instead, purely to stop it growing.
My answer: explicit structure stays worth it only if you keep pruning what it costs to carry. Dusk clearly does that. Whether it holds as more transaction types get added is what I'm not sure about yet.
$DUSK @Dusk #dusk
